The Oxford University Byzantine Society · translatio imperii? Of Kritovoulos we know very little...

The Oxford University Byzantine Society

Ioannou Centre for Classical and Byzantine Studies

66 St. Giles’

Oxford

United Kingdom

OX1 3LU

Committee 2019-2020

President – Daniel Gallaher (Balliol College, Oxford)

Secretary – Lorenzo Saccon (Wolfson College, Oxford)

Treasurer – Joshua Hitt (St Hilda’s College, Oxford)

[email protected]

https://oxfordbyzantinesociety.wordpress.com/

Contents

Daniel Gallaher (Balliol College)

A Message from the OUBS President 1-3

Isabella Heinemann (St Hilda’s College)

Mehmed II as Roman Emperor

Kritovoulos’ History contextualised 4-9

Chloé Agar (St Cross College)

‘Thou shalt not kill’, or something like that.

Saints committing acts of violence in Coptic hagiography 10-17

Lorenzo Saccon (Wolfson College)

An Interview with Professor Jonathan Harris 18-22

Lorenzo Saccon (Wolfson College)

An Apology by Symeon of Thessaloniki 23-30

The texts and images printed herein are © by the Authors and may not be reproduced without permission.

Cover image:The Yorck Project (2002) 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei (DVD-ROM), distributed by

DIRECTMEDIA Publishing GmbH. ISBN: 3936122202

The Byzantinist | 1

A Message from the OUBS President Dan Gallaher

For many years, the Oxford University

Byzantine Society (OUBS) has stood at the

heart of Oxford’s Late Antique and Byzantine

Studies (LABS) community. The OUBS is an

entirely graduate-run organisation that aims to

foster a supportive academic community of

students and scholars. Our main role involves

welcoming new students into the discipline

and keeping everyone up to date with news

and information from week to week.

During my time as president, I have set out to

shape the OUBS to reflect the huge variety of

academic interests and backgrounds within

the LABS community at Oxford. As the society

continues to grow in size and ambition, I must

acknowledge the tireless work of previous

OUBS presidents and their committees. In

just a few short years, they have radically

redefined the scope of the society and

moulded it into the dynamic entity that exists

today. It is this spirit of adaptation and

innovation that will, I hope, continue to drive

the OUBS in the years to come.

A testament to this ambition is our annual

research trip. Following on from successful

research trips to Bulgaria, Iran and Greece,

the OUBS will be leading a group of 35 to

Georgia in April 2020. Georgia was chosen as

the destination with a view to broadening the

academic horizons of Oxford's LABS

community, bringing into focus the study of the

South Caucasus.

The itinerary has been tailored to the research

interests of the trip's participants, ensuring that

everyone is able to take full advantage of this

opportunity. The trip will involve scholars from

various stages in their academic careers,

allowing the entire group to benefit from the

specialist knowledge of its members. This will

be an excellent opportunity to benefit from the

experience of students and staff working

specifically on Georgian material, as well as to

deepen connections with Georgian scholars.

For over two decades, the OUBS has

organised an international graduate

conference. The event has continued to grow,

and this year we are pleased to welcome 48

speakers from over 20 different countries. The

conference is entitled ‘The State Between:

Liminality, Transition and Transformation in

Late Antiquity and Byzantium’ and will be held

on the 28th-29th February 2020 in the History

The Byzantinist | 2

Faculty. The OUBS conference provides a

platform for postgraduates and early career

researchers to discuss their work in a friendly

and supportive environment. It also performs

an important role on a larger scale,

showcasing the value and diversity of

postgraduate research.

As my own academic interests lie in medieval

Armenia, it has been my aim to open up the

conference to scholars conducting research

beyond the traditional framework of Byzantine

studies. I look forward to hearing the many

different responses to the conference theme

and engaging with the interdisciplinary

dialogue that will emerge from these two days.

Nonetheless, it has been my intention to

improve access in more general terms. Whilst

presenting and discussing our own research is

a necessary part of our academic

development, these conferences often place a

large financial burden upon postgraduate

students. Thanks to an extraordinary donation

from the Oxford Centre of Byzantine Research

(OCBR), however, the OUBS has been able to

provide bursaries to speakers for the very first

time.

One of the central goals of the OUBS is to

enable young researchers to engage with the

wider academic community, giving them the

opportunity to showcase their work and form

lasting connections with contemporaries in

sister disciplines. In addition to our research

trip and graduate conference, the OUBS has

organised events with Graduate Archaeology

Oxford and the Oxford Medieval Society. I

hope that these collaborations will continue to

strengthen our ties with Oxford's wider

academic community.

Oxford can often come across as an unusual,

and - dare I say it - Byzantine institution. For

this reason, the OUBS has endeavoured to

make the process of orientation more

straightforward for incoming LABS students.

In addition to organising a mentoring system

for new graduates, the OUBS also publishes a

'Welcome Pack' to explain the idiosyncrasies

of academic life at the university. Furthermore,

our two weekly mailing lists exist to promote

awareness of academic events and job

opportunities, ensuring that students are able

to make the most of their time at Oxford.

The Byzantinist | 3

To that end, the OUBS has organised a wide

range of social events: last term saw an

'emeriti tea', a 'women’s drinks' event, and a

mid-term academic support meeting. Above

all, these events aim to promote

communication and foster support networks

between postgraduates, faculty members and

emeriti on an interdisciplinary level.

In the years to come, I have no doubt that the

OUBS will continue to grow and innovate,

uniting young researchers through shared

interests and forging an international

community for the next generation of scholars.

The Byzantinist | 4

Mehmed II as Roman Emperor Kritovoulos’ History contextualised Isabella Heinemann (St Hilda’s College, Oxford)

‘To hear this history rehearsed, for that there

be inserted in it no fables, shall be perhaps

not delightful.’ Ever since the Athenian

Thucydides set for himself this standard to

describe the events of the war in which he

had fought, his has been interpreted as the

golden example of objective historiography.

In Byzantine times he was venerated as the

Historian κατ' ἐξοχήν, if mostly only for his

model command of Attic Greek. Thucydides

was the core of the literary canon, a linguistic

and conceptual model to be emulated for

most of Byzantine History. A writer wishing to

draw particular attention to the purported

objectivity of his historiographical endeavour

had especially good reason to invoke

Thucydides in more than just style, as we can

see in the case of the deposed Emperor John

Kantakouzenos, seeking to clean his record

for posterity. If any historian ever had dire

need of such precautious professions of

neutrality, however, it must have been

Michael Kritovoulos, the Imbriote.

His Ξυγγραφή Ιστοριών (a title

chosen itself to allude to a synthesising

mimesis of Herodotos and Thucydides)

would perhaps appear a solid work of

narrative history in the Thucydidean,

Herodotean and Byzantine classicising

tradition, skilfully integrating both linguistic

appeal and authentic experience, but not

overly noteworthy among the many other

works of historiography which have come

down to us from the thriving literary culture of

the late Palaiologan period, were it not for the

astonishing fact that the Roman Emperor to

whose glorious deeds and virtuous character

it is dedicated is none else than the Ottoman

Sultan Mehmed II, Conqueror of

Constantinople. The work was presented to

him as a gift, and is thus the closest thing to

an official court biography of Mehmed we

have. As we will see, he is not only portrayed

sympathetically, but with all the tropes and

attributes which have traditionally pertained

to the Emperor in Byzantine historiography,

bestowing literary legitimacy onto his claim to

have seized the title of Roman Emperor

together with the City.

It is thus not difficult to imagine why

Kritovoulos should have chosen Thucydides

as ‘lodestar of his Mimesis’: he may have

The Byzantinist | 5

presciently sought to obviate some of the

inevitable charges of treachery his fellow

Greeks might have levelled against him by

clearly invoking the precedence of a

character universally respected. But could he

have claimed in good faith to be writing the

truth and only the truth? Should his work be

regarded as base, if well-written, sycophancy

or a dedicated and honest intellectual

contribution? And was it all that singular in its

idiosyncratic take on the momentous events

of 1453; in interpreting the ἅλωσις as a

translatio imperii?

Of Kritovoulos we know very little

apart from what he provides us with himself.

It is certain that he was born around the turn

of the fifteenth century into a family of local

notables on the island of Imbros. The

cognomen Michael as well as the original

patronymic form Κριτόπουλος, which he

atticised to the more classically euphonic

Κριτόβουλος, are known to us through a

small number of preserved religious opuscula

attributable to him and correspondence with

his circle of fellow intellectuals in

Constantinople, comprising such figures as

Gennadios Scholarios, Ioannes Eugenikos

and Georgios Amiroutzes. His adult life and

deeds as governor of his island home,

however, we know solely by his own account

in the History, in which he describes how he

adeptly transferred his allegiance to the new

master of the City after its fall in 1453, and

went on to serve the Sultan as a diplomat on

various occasions thereafter. As a frequent

and respected guest at that court, he worked

on and continued to edit his magnum opus

between the years of 1453 and 1468.

External corroboration of this

autobiographical part of the History is given

by the Italian traveller and humanist Ciriaco

d’Ancona, himself a shadowy historical

figure, who had visited Imbros in 1444 and

praised the hospitality of the vir doctus et

nobilis Critobulus he encountered there. The

history itself is divided in five books, covering

approximately the time period from 1451, the

final accession of Mehmed to the throne, and

1467, when Kritovoulos presented his

finished work to his Maecenas. It follows a

Thucydidean model of form as well, with

speeches, excursions and eyewitness

accounts interspersed with occasional

commentary by the author on the events

The Byzantinist | 6

related.

‘To the Supreme Emperor, King of

Kings, Mehmed, the fortunate, the victor, the

winner of trophies, the triumphant, the

invincible, Lord of land and sea by the will of

God, Kritovoulos the Islander, slave of thy

slaves.’; by this grandiose address

Kritovoulos opens and dedicates his work to

his patron. The work’s copious preface

already makes it abundantly clear that the

appeal to Thucydides does not preclude

Kritovoulos from lavishing his adulation upon

the intended recipient, and it is here that

many later philologists encountered most of

the ‘Byzantine obsequiousness’ which

disgusted them so in the work. Stylistically,

the epistle accompanying the work and the

proem proper, that is the first section of Book

One, belong together to form a complete

classical proem. In Herodotean tradition,

Kritovoulos lays out the reasons which

compelled him to write down the history of his

times, and then assures the readers of its

accuracy by drawing almost

verbatim on Thucydides (καὶ διὰ

πάντων τἀληθοῦς πλεῖστον λόγον

ποιούμενος). Two aspects are of special

interest to us in the proem, namely the

juxtaposition of the mentioned panegyric to

Mehmed and the subsequent paraitesis, but

really apology, in which Kritovoulos

addresses his countrymen.

Again, it seems Kritovoulos was well

aware that History tends to not judge traitors

kindly, and was eager to disavow himself of

any base motives of either stupidity or

perversity. The mere existence of this

paraitesis at such a prominent place in the

work also suggests already that the intended

audience of the History was not solely

Mehmed and his immediate court, and that

Kritovoulos may have had farther aims than

merely to ingratiate himself with the new

overlord. Kritovoulos assures his compatriots

that he ‘shares in their pain’, but his view of

historical reality which he here presents to

the audience must have been only more

painful if anything to come to terms with:

‘For who has not known that from the

time of man’s genesis the attributes of

kingship and rule have not remained upon

the same and not been confined to one

people or race. Ever wandering, it has

passed and settled everywhere, shifting from

The Byzantinist | 7

race to race and from place to place. At some

times to the Assyrians, Medes, and Persians,

at others to the Hellenes and Romans, it

makes visits in accordance with the time and

period and has never stood in the same

place. And so it is not something astonishing

that they do and experience the same things

now and that the Romans lose their rule and

fortune.’

The way he presents the cataclysmic

fall of the City which had been the centre of

the political and religious life of his society for

over a millennium with such detachment is

extraordinary enough, but it must also be

remembered that the idea of cyclical history

directly contradicts the religious fabric of

Byzantine society. The Roman Empire was

indeed traditionally conceived of as

‘absolutely above all others and not under

any circumstances to be compared or

contrasted with any others’, an illusion which

Kritovoulos decidedly rejects. Kritovoulos,

however, argues for the cathartic aspects of

his model: rejecting providence in favour of

cyclical history, he encourages the Greeks

also not to blame any fault in their moral

characters for the City’s fall, as opposed to

the widespread idea that the Turks merely

administered divine punishment for the sins

committed by its citizens.

Turning towards the subject of

Mehmed’s portrayal, the epistle sets the tone

for a characterisation which will be

elaborated throughout the History. The

formal address offered to the sovereign

quoted above contains a plethora of imperial

traditions; among them the Persian King of

Kings, the Seljuk Lord between the Seas, the

Classical Winner of Trophies and the

Byzantine Will of God. The most conspicuous

aspect is the unequivocal recognition of

Mehmed as the legitimate inheritor of the

imperial title – supreme ruler of the world. But

Mehmed is not only presented as a powerful

ruler, but a man of extraordinary virtue at that,

whose personal deeds easily rival those of

ancient heroes such as Alexander the Great

or Agamemnon, to whom he is likened

indirectly by a borrowed aphorism from the

Iliad. He is a man of culture and erudition, a

philosopher king and philhellene. These

three themes are elaborated throughout the

books, not only by direct praise, but also by

way of circumstantial evidence as well as

The Byzantinist | 8

literary allusion.

In war, Mehmed fights alongside his

soldiers, whom he extols in rousing speeches

which Kritovoulos models on the famous

Thucydidean examples, to ‘take time by the

forelock’, and prevail through bravery.

Mehmed turns into a proponent of classical

virtue to be rewarded with victory, and

archetype of the young leader willing to

shape his own fate. In this, he is clearly

modelled after the example of Alexander the

Great, which is explicitly invoked at various

points in the text. Kritovoulos evokes the

identification of Mehmed with Alexander by

borrowing a whole number of figures of

speech, literal allusions and rich military

vocabulary from Arrian’s Anabasis Alexandri.

Interestingly, Kritovoulos sees no

contradiction in presenting his hero as the

new Alexander and a purported descendant

of the Achaemenids at once. Going further,

he lets him, on a visit to Troy again mirroring

quite precisely Alexander’s visit to that place

of legend as recounted by Arrian, muse on

the role that faith has awarded him; to have

finally avenged the Trojans as a fellow Asiatic

against their conquerors, the Greeks. The

special irony of this juxtaposition, considering

the Empire the Sultan conquered was in fact

the Empire of the Romans, which itself had

traditionally been traced back to a Trojan

origin, seems to have eluded Kritovoulos.

Mehmed is linked to a seemingly eclectic

assembly of ancient heroes and kings; he is

curiously both Agamemnon and Hektor,

Alexander and Achaimenes. What unites

them all and characterizes him as well is

undoubtedly their prowess in war and

personal virtue.

Mehmed also splendidly fulfils the other

expectation placed on the classic ideal of a

Roman Emperor. He gives himself over to the

construction of public works, fora, baths and

religious monuments in his new capital of

Constantinople ‘to vie with the largest and

finest of the temples already existing there’.

He invests Patriarch Gennadios with the

privilege to order church affairs, and thus

claims for himself also the Emperor’s role as

protector of the Orthodox Church. He

personally sees to the capital’s inhabitants

returning to it after the plunder and

dislocation of the conquest, and encourages

new settlement as well. Those Romans who

The Byzantinist | 9

found themselves prisoners of his people he

pays a wage, so that they may ransom

themselves and resume their former

livelihoods.

Finally, just as the erstwhile Roman

conquerors of Greece, he is a dedicated

philhellene; an admirer of Greek philosophy

and letters, arts and science. He surrounds

himself with learned men such as Gennadios

Scholarios, George Amiroutzes, and,

naturally, the author himself. Most poignantly,

as Mehmed returned from the first campaign

in the Peloponnese, we are told he went out

of his way to visit the classical ruins of the

Akropolis at Athens. Following in the

footsteps of Polybios’ Flaminius and, again,

Arrian’s Alexander, Mehmed has come to

Hellas not only as a conqueror, but as an

admirer of its glorious past. Kritovoulos

considered the two anything but

incompatible.

We have seen now how the aspects

of Mehmed’s portrayal by Kritovoulos

intertwine and create the outline of a figure

greater than its parts: Mehmed, as acting

Roman Emperor won by right of both virtue

and history, guards the peace of the world,

which in its entirety he subjects to his plans

of universal conquest, as did Alexander of

Macedon, and shows himself, through his

personal philhellenism, to consciously place

himself in their tradition. He has not

destroyed Constantinople, but rather

returned the City to her proper place at the

centre of this world empire.

The Byzantinist | 10

‘Thou shalt not kill’, or something like that. Saints committing acts of

violence in Coptic hagiography Chloé Agar (St Cross College, Oxford)

Outside of the study of

Christianity, the religion’s

message of non-violence

seems to be emphasised.

However, within early

Christian hagiography,

violence is in fact prevalent. For instance, in

Egypt alone, a reputation of murder and

conspiracy hangs over the patriarch Cyril of

Alexandria, and the abbot of the White

Monastery Shenoute is notorious for his

assault of perceived dissidents and

destruction of icons (e.g. Bell 1973: 16). One

may view violence as a necessary response to

the persecution of Christians, particularly

within the anti-Chalcedonian Coptic Church,

which was vulnerable within Christianity as

well as without.

This would then suggest that violence

within early Christianity, at least in the Coptic

Church, was limited to high-status members of

its clergy. In reality, there are numerous

examples of violence enacted by martyr saints

within hagiography written in Coptic that, while

evidence of the perception of the cult of saints

rather than the saints’ lives themselves,

indicate that there was an acceptance of a

culture of violence even among the holiest of

the saints (Keskiaho 2015: 14; Kritzinger

2011: 36).

This paper will include a range of

martyr saints attested in Coptic hagiography,

who may also be attested in hagiography in

other languages but for whom the exact

narratives referred to in this paper will only be

attested in Coptic. The violence enacted by

them occurs in many forms and as part of

martyrdoms and posthumous miracles. This

paper therefore hypothesises that the violence

enacted by martyr saints in these narratives

suits the situation in which it occurs in form and

severity, and will explore a range of examples

to evaluate this.

Apa Kollouthos

Apa Kollouthos of Antinoopolis was a

physician who was martyred under Diocletian

(S00641). Most of the hagiography in his

tradition is fragmentary, but there is a


complete encomium on Pierpont Morgan

Codex M591, attributed to Isaak of

Antinoopolis (E00666). In this encomium,

visitors come to his shrine for aid with a range

of medical complaints. Two of the posthumous

miracles involve a man who injured his foot

while drunk and a lame man respectively.

While the form of Apa Kollouthos’ violence

towards them is verbal rather than physical,

there is the threat of further repercussions.

The man with the injured foot he scolds for

having become injured in the first place,

saying ‘Indeed, these things have befallen you

because of the excessive drunkenness with

wine to which you have been accustomed’

(Thompson 1993: 53). The lame man he

scolds for being impatient at the shrine,

saying: ‘Your body was not set on fire like me’

(Thompson 1993: 55). Apa Kollouthos’

treatment of his patients therefore shows his

character to behave suitably within the

situation while still addressing their

unsatisfactory conduct.

Apa Kollouthos also commits more

severe violence. In a fragmentary text from a

larger miracle collection, his shrine is attacked

by a pagan man and his community when this

man learns that his wife has gone to the shrine

to be healed (Schenke 2013: 209; E00668).

Once they reach the doorstep, they are

blinded by the saint for three days and nights.

While not as violent as many things that he

could have done, the form and the severity of

the violence seem to be suitable for the

situation in that he protected his shrine and the

pagan man’s wife, and provided a punishment

of appropriate form and duration by a saint

who was a physician during his life.

Apa Menas

Apa Menas, whose pilgrimage site was based

at Abu Mina, is another saint whose

hagiographical tradition is replete with healing

miracles (Grossmann 1998: 281). However, in

contrast to Apa Kollouthos, during his life Apa

Menas was a soldier (E01223). It may

therefore be suggested that he would commit

more severe violence.

This certainly seems to be the case

when Apa Menas saves a female pilgrim from

being raped by an innkeeper (Drescher 1946:

121). The saint petrifies the innkeeper’s hand

while he is still holding the sword with which he

was threatening the pilgrim. Given that the

innkeeper’s hand is unable to let go of the


sword and, instead of a fixed duration, he must

travel to the saint’s shrine to be healed, this

seems to be a more severe punishment than

Apa Kollouthos’ blinding his attackers. Also,

given the arguably greater severity of the

crime, it therefore seems that this more severe

violence was appropriate to the situation.

It may therefore be expected that Apa

Menas would enact equally severe violence

upon the perpetrators of other violent crimes.

However, this does not seem to be the case,

as in another posthumous miracle, he does

not intervene until after a pilgrim has been

murdered and his body dismembered. Apa

Menas then appears to the murderer and

resurrects the pilgrim, leaving the murderer

chastised but unharmed (Drescher 1946: 112-

13). This suggests that the form and severity

of violence as a punishment is not always

proportional to the level of violence

demonstrated in the original crime, and that

other factors are involved. It may be that a

murder victim can be resurrected, but a rape

victim cannot be ‘un-raped’, necessitating the

saint’s intervention before the crime was

committed and more severe violence towards

the perpetrator. It therefore seems that the

form and severity of violence committed by a

saint is appropriate to the situation, but that

that appropriateness may not be at first

apparent to a modern reader.

Apa Merkourios

While Apa Merkourios’ cult was based in

Caesarea rather than in Egypt, the majority of

hagiographical texts concerning him are

written in Coptic. This may be because his cult

has been conflated with a contemporary saint

of the same name from Israel, but that is

uncertain (S00225; S01323).

Apa Merkourios received

encouragement from the archangel Michael

while serving as a soldier and also while

undergoing his martyrdom, which suggests

the patronage of the archangel over at least

some soldiers, seeing as there is no record in

Coptic of him having appeared to Apa Menas

(Budge 1915: 861). During the battle in which

Apa Merkourios earned his acclaim with the

emperor, the archangel Michael handed him a

sword. This may have been a symbolic way of

condoning the violence that he commits in his

posthumous miracles as he, although using a

spear rather than a sword, enacts the most

severe violence of the saints included in this


paper. Apa Merkourios’ tradition most notably

includes the killing of the emperor Julian the

Apostate (Budge 1915: 826). This is the only

time in which Apa Merkourios’ violence results

in death, which could be argued to have been

appropriate. Apa Merkourios almost kills

another individual and violently humiliates

another within the same manuscript. The

former is a Jew who rides a mule into the

saint’s shrine (Budge 1915: 842-3). Further

evidence of the saint’s patronage by the

archangel Michael comes from the fact that

the text implies that he would have killed the

Jew had the archangel not intervened. The

latter is a magician who made a young woman

grievously ill so that her parents would wed her

to a certain young man. Apa Merkourios

seems to have acknowledged the magician’s

responsibility for the situation, and he publicly

beats him at his shrine (Budge 1915: 851).

The patronage of the archangel

Michael may explain the severity of the

violence that this saint enacts. However, it is

arguable that this violence was not always

appropriate to the situation in which it

occurred.

Thekla and Apa Paese

Apa Paese and Thekla of Alexandria are

siblings whose exploits are contained in a

single martyrdom (S00750; E01225). All of the

physical violence committed in the martyrdom

is done towards them. However, there is

another form of violence committed by Thekla.

After one of the dux’s many

unsuccessful attempts to torture the pair into

renouncing their faith, there is an exchange

between him and Thekla in which she calls him

a ‘dog’ and challenges him to have Apollo

appear to prove that he is the true god

(Reymond and Barns 1973: 173). The writer’s

choice to have Thekla participate in this

exchange rather than Apa Paese is notable, at

least to a modern reader, because of

perceived greater risk of more severe

physical, and perhaps sexual, violence in

retaliation. However, it may have been justified

in the context of the text’s composition to show

Thekla as the more confrontational of the two

saints, in order to show the female character

as equal to male martyrs by following

behaviours exhibited by some of the male

martyrs included in this paper, albeit more

aggressively (e.g. Reymond and Barns 1973:


148-9; Alcock: 12-13). With only a single

female martyr included in this paper, it is not

possible to suggest whether Thekla’s

behaviour is typical.

This paper therefore argues that the

form and severity of Thekla’s verbal violence

was appropriate to the situation that she was

in as male martyrs often have verbal

exchanges with their persecutors.

Apa Viktor, son of Romanos

Most of the Coptic hagiographical tradition of

Apa Viktor is attributed to Celestine of Rome

(Reymond and Barns 1973: 156; O’Leary

1937: 279-80). According to this tradition, he

was born in Antioch but exiled to Egypt to be

tortured and martyred.

There are two incidents in Apa Viktor’s

Coptic tradition that are similar to those of Apa

Merkourios, but with notable differences. The

first is that the archangel Michael also appears

to Apa Viktor, although not while he is on the

battlefield since Apa Viktor is a child at the time

(Budge 1914: 276-7). The main difference

from Apa Merkourios’ experience is that the

archangel does not hand Apa Viktor a sword.

This may be because he was a child, but it

may also indicate, especially when considered

alongside the second incident, that Apa Viktor

also had the archangel’s patronage but was

not expected to perform as severe violence as

Apa Merkourios. The second incident is that

Apa Viktor also appears to an emperor. He

appears to Diocletian and his entourage,

including his own father (Scott 1993: 113-14).

Unlike Apa Merkourios’ appearance to Julian

the Apostate, Apa Viktor instead rebukes them

verbally, although not as aggressively as

Thekla does the dux. The lack of violence may

result from his being the son of a soldier rather

than a soldier himself. However, this would

then suggest that Apa Menas should have

appeared to an emperor. It can therefore be

surmised instead that Apa Merkourios and

Apa Viktor both appeared to emperors

because they were favoured by them before

their martyrdoms.

This paper can therefore suggest that,

like Thekla, the form of verbal rather than

physical violence by Apa Viktor was

appropriate to the situation, suggesting that

the use of violence by Apa Merkourios is an

anomaly within the behaviour of martyr saints.


James the Persian

The final saint to be discussed in this paper is

James the Persian (alternatively known as

‘James the Dismembered’). His Coptic

tradition is attested by a single text, which is a

martyrdom that originated in Syriac. Like Apa

Merkourios, James was martyred outside of

Egypt. However, unlike Apa Merkourios, the

Coptic translation of James’ martyrdom

includes the narrative of how his relics were

taken to Egypt (O’Leary 1937: 161).

In this narrative, James protects those

moving his relics throughout their journey. This

protection, albeit with no confrontations and

therefore no violence to exemplify, seems to

have led some of those moving his relics to be

so fond of the saint that they tried to take the

saint’s relics with them instead of leaving them

in Egypt (Alcock 23-4). James the Persian

appears to them and scolds them. It could be

argued that thieves actually stealing not only

from a shrine site but stealing the relics of a

saint should have been treated with more

severe violence by the saint concerned.

However, this paper argues that the response

that the perpetrators received from the saint

was appropriate to the situation because of the

relationship that they formed with him before

the crime was committed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper has explored the

hagiographical tradition in Coptic of a range of

martyr saints to assess whether the form and

severity of the violence enacted by them was

appropriate to the situation in which it

occurred. The hypothesis that the violence

would be appropriate has been proven to be

correct for all of the saints explored except for

Apa Merkourios, the severity of whose

violence seems to be particularly extreme but

perhaps intended by the writer within the

context of his narrative and his character. It

can therefore be stated that the violence

enacted by martyr saints in Coptic

hagiographical tradition is a necessary part of

their martyrdom experience, and is also

necessary for the preservation of their shrines

and those who visit them.


Bibliography

Editions

Alcock, A. (unpublished), James the Persian. Accessed at https://suciualin.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/james-the-persian.pdf.

Bell, D. N. 1983, Besa: The Life of Shenoute. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications. Budge, E. A. W. 1914, Coptic martyrdoms etc. in the dialect of Upper Egypt. London: British

Museum. _____________ 1915, Miscellaneous Coptic texts in the dialect of Upper Egypt. London: British

Museum. Drescher, J. 1946, Apa Mena: A selection of Coptic texts relating to St. Menas. Cairo. Reymond, E. A. E. and Barns, J. W. B. 1973, Four martyrdoms from the Pierpont Morgan codices.

Oxford: Clarendon Press. Schenke, G. 2013, Das koptisch hagiographische Dossier des Heiligen Kolluthos – Arzt, Märtyrer

und Wunderheiler, eingeleitet, neu ediert, übersetzt und kommentiert. CSCO 650 Subsidia 132. Louvain: Peeters.

Scott, A. B. 1993, ‘Encomium on St. Victor (M591, ff. 34v–49v), attributed to Theopempus of Antioch’ in L. Depuydt (ed.), Encomiastica from the Pierpont Morgan Library. CSCO 545: Copt. 48. Louvain: Peeters, pp. 103-18.

Thompson, S. E. 1993, ‘Encomium on St. Coluthus (M591, ff. 94r–121v), attributed to Isaac of Antinoe’ in L. Depuydt (ed.), Encomiastica from the Pierpont Morgan Library.CSCO 545:

Copt. 48. Louvain: Peeters, pp. 37-64.

Secondary literature

Grossmann, P. 1998, ‘The Pilgrimage Centre of Abu Mina’ in D. Frankfurter (ed.) Pilgrimage and holy space in Late Antique Egypt. Leiden: Brill, pp. 281-302.

Keskiaho, J. 2015, Dreams and visions in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kritzinger, P. 2011, ‘The cult of saints and religious processions in Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages’ in P. Sarris, M. Dal Santo, and P. Booth (eds.), An age of saints? Power, conflict and dissent in early Medieval Christianity. Leiden; Biggleswade: Brill, pp. 36-48.

O’Leary, D. L. 1937, The saints of Egypt. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; New York: Macmillan.

Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity database entries

Saint records

S00641, ‘Kollouthos, physician and martyr of Antinoopolis (Middle Egypt)’. Accessed at http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=S00641.

S00750, ‘Paese and Thekla from Pousire and Antinoopolis, martyrs of Alexandria, beheaded in the village of Tepot’. Accessed at http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=S00750.


Evidence records

E00666, Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, ‘Coptic Encomion on *Kollouthos (physician and martyr of

Antinoopolis, S00641) attributed to Isaak’. Accessed at http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E00666.

E00668, Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, ‘Fragment of a Coptic Miracle of *Kollouthos (physician and martyr of Antinoopolis, S00641)’. Accessed at http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E00668.

E01223, Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, ‘Coptic Encomium on Apa *Mena/Menas (soldier and martyr of Abu Mena, S00073) attributed to John, archbishop of Alexandria’. Accessed at http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E01223.

E01225, Gesa Schenke, Cult of Saints, ‘Coptic Martyrdom of *Paese and his sister Thekla (martyrs of Alexandria, S00750)’. Accessed at http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E01225.


An Interview with Professor Jonathan Harris Professor of the History of Byzantium, Royal Holloway, University of London Interviewer: Lorenzo Saccon (Wolfson College)

What created your

interest in the field of

Byzantine studies?

Like most people, I knew

almost nothing about

Byzantium before I went to university, having

studied the 1815-1951 period for O and A

Level. I had read Robert Graves’ Count

Belisarius but I did not think it nearly as good

as I Claudius. A week after arriving at King’s

College London, I went to a lecture by Donald

Nicol on the 1453 fall of Constantinople and

was intrigued. The next step was reading

Steven Runciman’s book on topic and

anything else I could find (although there did

not seem to be that much). I suspect that many

others have discovered the subject in a similar

way. During my second and third year, I chose

to take Roman History up to 400 CE with Averil

Cameron and the Optional and Special

subjects offered by Julian Chrysostomides:

‘Byzantium and Italy, 518-1025’ and

‘Byzantium, Italy and the First Crusade, 1025-

1118’. A period spent teaching in Turkey after

completing my BA reinforced the fascination.

It was not just that I was able to visit the great

monuments like Hagia Sophia and the Chora:

more of an impact was made by coming

across a crumbling eleventh-century church

with a few fragments of fresco left clinging to

the brickwork. Perhaps I just like lost causes

and so I came back to London to take my MA

and then to embark on doctoral research with

Julian Chrysostomides as my supervisor.

You have always showed a keen

interest for the world of late Byzantium.

What, in your opinion, makes this

period so interesting?

That partly reflects the way that I came in at

the end by walking into Donald Nicol’s lecture

and by being taught by Julian Chrysostomides

who was herself a specialist in the fourteenth

and fifteenth centuries. Most Byzantinists do

it the other way round by continuing on from

the classical world and so, not surprisingly,


targeting Late Antiquity or middle Byzantium.

For me the fascination with the last century

and the period after 1453 is the wider range of

source material that is available, especially

archival documents. They provide a first-hand

immediacy that is often lacking for previous

centuries and give an insight into Byzantium’s

interaction with the wider world: the Venetian

maritime empire, Renaissance Italy and even

Lancastrian and Yorkist England.

Your books have probably been the

introduction for many to the world of

Byzantium. What are the challenges of

presenting thorough scholarly

research to a wider public?

Most of my books have grown out of my BA

and MA teaching at Royal Holloway and other

London colleges. As in most universities these

days, courses are only allowed to run if they

meet a minimum recruitment threshold so I

have to make Byzantine history attractive to as

wide a cross section of the student body as

possible. There is still (and perhaps always will

be) a lingering suspicion that Byzantium is all

a bit weird so I place the emphasis on themes

that will be familiar from other courses such as

political and military history, gender,

economics and cultural interaction. I do not

touch on current research themes which, while

entirely valid, are not particularly riveting to

those outside a small circle of specialists. The

same applies to my books which link to

subjects that are likely to be of wider interest

such as, in one case, the crusades. There are

other challenges as well. The unfamiliar

names and specialised vocabulary are

decidedly off-putting. English speakers seem

daunted by words with more than two syllables

so that ‘parakoimomenos’ and

‘Chalkokondyles’ cause particular problems.

Greek plurals, such as ‘follis’ to ‘folleis’ and

‘tagma’ to ‘tagmata’, also spread alarm and

despondency. I even find it a struggle

sometimes to establish that the terms

‘Byzantium’ and ‘the Byzantine empire’ are

acceptable but not ‘the Byzantium empire’. I

have adopted a number of ways to make the

vocabulary less of a barrier. I stick to a single

form whenever possible or use a way round.

For example, I talk about the ‘Phokas family’

rather than the ‘Phokades’. English

equivalents can be used, such as


‘chamberlain’ for parakoimomenos and, where

one exists, the more familiar version of a

Greek first name, hence ‘John’ rather than

‘Ioannis’. This is not an attempt to anglicise the

Byzantines (as their ancient Greek forebears

have long since been) but to make their history

accessible to an international readership.

When it comes to the books, I cite only English

translations of primary sources where they

exist and keep largely to secondary work in

English. Reviewers have sometimes taken

exception to this but I would never dream of

doing it in an article for a learned journal! I am

merely providing the annotation that is

appropriate to the kind of readership the book

is aimed at. Most of what I write is not

designed to make some definitive statement or

advance some ground-breaking theory but just

to give students and readers a foot in the door

to Byzantine studies.

Your ‘Introduction to Byzantium, 602-

1453’ is going to be published by

Routledge in April. How did this

publication come about?

The main impetus for writing was to provide a

textbook for my own teaching. There is already

a very good textbook on Byzantium by

Timothy Gregory but it is unsuited to what I do

because it includes Late Antiquity and devotes

relatively little space to the later centuries.

Hence the date span of my book which is

restricted to the period that I actually teach.

There were other considerations too. When I

was an undergraduate, it was assumed that

you were familiar with certain things such as,

for example, the Christian religion and the

French language. That can no longer be

assumed either in the UK or further afield. A

few years ago, I taught for a couple weeks in

China where Byzantium is covered as part of

world history. The students (most of whom

were on engineering or medical courses) had

an extraordinarily high standard of English

comprehension but, of course, none of the

cultural background. I wanted my textbook to

be usable in that environment. Finally, rather

than just giving a narrative of events, I wanted

to incorporate into the textbook some of the

more stimulating scholarly debates that have

shaped our subject and made it what it is

today. So I have included profiles of some


prominent Byzantinists of the past in textboxes

and outlined a few of the more influential

theories and interpretations.

What do you think of the state of the

field of Byzantine studies?

Byzantinists are much given to lamenting the

neglect of their subject area but taking the

United Kingdom as a whole there is a huge

range of exciting and valuable work being

done. We have historians, art historians,

numismatists, epigraphers, theologians,

palaeographers, literature specialists,

language specialists and gender specialists,

working in universities across the country,

alongside others who have no institutional

affiliation. That said, I think that we could do

more to become aware of each other’s

existence, to learn from the wide array of skills

and approaches that we deploy, and to

appreciate and celebrate the advances that

are being made. There is a temptation to

regard our own specialisation within the

subject as central and that of others as

peripheral: those who apply critical theory to

Byzantium sometimes regard those who edit

manuscripts as antiquarians and by the same

token the manuscript specialists can be

suspicious of new interpretations and

approaches. Moreover, it might be time to

consider what ‘Byzantine studies’ actually are.

Traditionally the term has meant the Christian

eastern empire from c.300-1453 CE but that

means that historians of the later Roman

empire are rather uneasily yoked together with

people like me who study contemporaries of

Chaucer. Moreover, since the pioneering work

of Peter Brown in the early 1970s, Late

Antiquity has grown to be a dynamic and

rapidly evolving sphere of study and it is, in

any case, demonstrably different from the

world that emerged after the watershed of the

seventh century. We might want to accept that

we have two discrete areas of research here.

Are you already working on a new

project?

Throughout my career, in between teaching

and writing other books, I have continued to

work on the topic that formed my PhD thesis:


the Byzantine diaspora of the fifteenth century

in the wake of the Ottoman conquest. The

thesis was published in 1995 (in a very limited

print run) but since then, great strides have

been made with the work of Thierry Ganchou,

Nada Zečević and others. My own research

has also moved forward considerably as I

have continued to write academic journal

articles and chapters on this theme. I am now

starting to plan out a new book that deals with

issues of perception, integration and identity

among the Byzantine émigrés. There are two

other projects on the go: Along with my former

PhD student, Georgios Chatzelis, I am

preparing a collection of Byzantine texts on the

crusades in English translation and I am

editing a revised version of The Oxford

Illustrated History of the Crusade.


An Apology of Symeon of Thessaloniki Lorenzo Saccon (Wolfson College, Oxford)

The first half of the

fourteenth century was a

turbulent period for

Thessaloniki, which

changed hands three

times before being finally conquered by the

Turks in 1430. Its archbishop, saint Symeon (c.

1381–1429), had been rather reticent to

accede to his throne, aware of the dangers

awaiting him within and without the city walls.

This he admits in the following Apology, written

to justify his sudden departure in a moment of

great crisis. With this text, Symeon wanted to

prove to his flock that they were not being

abandoned by their shepherd, but rather that

his journey was made for their advantage.

Although very personal, this document does

give a strong impression of the desperate

situation of the late Byzantine Empire,

surrounded on all sides by its enemies, Latins

and Turks. Symeon wanted the Thessalonians

to not cede to either side: neither to the godless

Turks, nor to the heretical Venetians. This

journey might be his last one, as the Apology

strongly suggests towards its conclusion, but it

is necessary to secure help from

Constantinople. The results were very different.

Symeon could not go further than Mt Athos,

and Thessalonica was sold to the Venetians in

1423.

Homily and apology on setting out to

Constantinople. After having reached the

Holy Mountain, due to a raid of the godless

Hagarenes, Symeon came back,

dispatching the letters of the most blessed

despot, since the holy men on mount

Athos also recommended to do this in

obligation to Christ.

1. Symeon, the last of the servants of Jesus

Christ, archbishop of Thessalonica due to His

grace and mercy, to his God-loving suffragan

bishops, beloved brothers in Christ, to the

most honourable leaders of the church in that

city, to all priests and monks, to the most

glorious senators of the people and to the

whole body of the Christians, children in the

Lord who most long for your humble

archbishop: I pray, with my whole soul, that

from God the Father and our Lord Jesus

Christ in the Holy Spirit you shall receive


grace, peace, blessings, health, joy, freedom

from all evil. May you successfully progress in

all goodness and all which is salvific and

helpful, both earthly and heavenly.

2. Blessed be God, Father of our Lord

Jesus Christ, who from the beginning

strengthened and fixed you in the true faith of

his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, who

increased you in the prosperity of the Holy

Spirit and granted you many fruits to

strengthen your faith. Indeed, you have not

received faith in a second moment, but from

the beginning with the Lord’s apparition on

earth. Nor did you learn the doctrine later,

from some following teachers, but from those

great heralds and eyewitnesses of the Lord.

Indeed, Paul was your teacher, and those

working with him for your salvation, Timothy,

Luke and Silvanus; with them also many

others, who are considered companions of

the apostles. So, after you received the

doctrine of the faith, you were not known to be

careless and weak, but burning with zeal and

courage about it. Wherefore, when you

suffered much from the very beginning

because of your pious devotion, as Paul

testifies, and at the hands of your compatriots,

you endured it all with joy. Because of this,

your faith increased, and this entire city

became of Christ, except a very few people,

who were left to the most-evil demon as some

wretched legacy. Many of you offered to God

the fruits of their faith not only in words, but

also in actions, neglecting their bodies and

offering themselves to mortification for Christ,

and their heads were girded with the shining

crown of martyrdom, as they eagerly desired.

Demetrios, the greatest of Christ’s

champions, he who received to pour forth

myrrh above them all because of his great

purity and the immeasurable love he had

towards God, is exceptional among them.

You are always protected by his sleepless

vigils and are rescued by his intercession to

God from all vexation, and when you often fall

into great woes because of your sins, you are

saved from all calamity and violence through

the martyr.

3. Indeed, the city was already captured

by the infidels and suffered great troubles and

destruction, and it endured woes when the

heretics took control of it in a different time. It


was not long ago that it came under the

control of the godless enemies, not because

our watchful guardian was dozing off, nor

because he was shrinking from his role – how

could it be? – he who often rescued the city,

at one time supporting it during a famine, at

another saving it secretly from the plotting of

the enemies, and protected her by many other

actions, which are recorded and trusted to be

true. Therefore, its handing over did not

happen because of Demetrios’ negligence,

but because the inhabitants behaved

ungratefully and maliciously towards God. For

the Israelites were not destroyed because of

Moses’ carelessness, nor did many others die

near Jordan because Joshua, his successor,

did not duly lead them. Indeed, while they did

not cease to carry out their commands, by

words and by actions, the people went

against God and did not obey them: these are

the real reasons why such sufferings came to

be, so that those who had been foolish could

come to their senses. Yet, when this

happened to our city, Demetrios, though

disapproving, delivered it again from these

difficulties against all hope. After all, this is

most true now, not too long ago, as you all

know, when he delivered this city from the

beast-like, bloodthirsty, godless enemy, as

from lion’s claws or a dragon’s mouth. I

believe that Paul’s prophecy, which he wrote

to you Thessalonians saying: ‘the Lord shall

rescue you from the coming wrath’ (Ep.

Thess. 1.10) was fulfilled with precision by

this action.

4. Nevertheless, we need to take care

not to fall again in error as we did before. And

no one else but us, even if we come up with

many excuses, shall be the cause of this.

Christ saved you through the martyr’s

supplication and watchful guard, and time

after time through the prayers of the greatest

of your shepherds and archbishops. Time

after time, indeed, some remarkable men

among you have been chosen by Christ: just

as you were famous for their many and most

beautiful words on piety, and gained the chief

teachers among the apostles, so too you were

later enriched by the teachers who followed

those great men. This good tradition was

maintained among you up to the days of the

archbishop who preceded me, whom you all

know to have been a godly and virtuous man,


who flourished in many actions according to

God and honoured the rule of his office and of

the monastic life in many ways. You know that

the previous bishop became like Paul, more,

like Jesus, and often laid his soul down for

you. Even the one before him is known to you,

a man full of virtues, an imitation of those men

of old. And what man was the holy Gregory,

how great his life! Was it not apostolic, the life

of one of Christ’s champions? Was he not a

theologian, and like the angels in his

hesychia? Because of his suffering for our

faith, was he not a martyr?

5. Only in me you have truly deviated

from this tradition: I succeeded them, but was

not adequate. Nevertheless, even if I did

nothing good and useful for you, I did not

neglect to do everything in my power, and

‘God loves that which is according to our

power’ as one of the theologians said

(Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 7, 17). I am

ashamed and humbled comparing the actions

of those before me and my own. But, thanks

to their prayers, I am again confident in Christ

that I did not usurp this throne, and it was not

by some human error that I came to this role,

as I myself can tell, and that faithful witness in

the sky. I do not know in detail, as He does,

how, by God’s disposition, I came to this

position, for I did avoid it because of the

difficulty of the role. I avoided it not by chance,

but because I partly knew that my strength

was not enough, not only for the position, but

also for the most terrible confusion and

worries of this great city. To put it simply, I

took pleasure in quietness because of the

great weakness of my constitution, and lived

a life which does not cause worries, and – for

reasons beyond my powers – I enjoyed with

liberality many favours in my homeland

thanks to God’s compassion. I was satisfied

with this, and I considered a burden what is

thought to be more important. However, after

I was forced to this position (only He who

knows everything knows how, not me, as I

said above), I did what I had to, but with

distress. And immediately my sufferings

began, once with haste and alone I left my

homeland, forced to do this: all of a sudden, I

was here, where no one knew me. You

received me hospitably, granted me great

honours, and showed me the greatest love,

‘as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself’,


as Paul says (Gal. 4.14). And you gave

yourselves first to the Lord and to me by the

will of God, for which I gave thanks to God

and I am forever grateful. You all kept that in

the past. What then, if someone seemed to

make me suffer? Even our Lord has suffered

from those who received benefits and was

afflicted by them. Consider Paul: did he not

travel to this city? Did he not endure great

sufferings? Then, what is remarkable if I, the

least of God’s servants, endured some little

pains? However, I did not fall short in doing

what was in my power, and I took care of the

good order of the churches, I organised the

holy celebrations and promoted the

restoration of holy houses. I urged you, with

constant teachings, on the way of the gospel.

I took great care to propitiate God with

prayers, litanies and holy ceremonies.

Without any gain, and with all care and

precision, I made the priesthood available to

those who are fitting, by God’s grace. With

constant advice and indications, I have urged

our most blessed despot, ruler of this city, on

matters which regarded her, as the Lord is my

witness, and with absolute purity and zeal of

justice, I attended trials, without departing

from truth. For this reason, I appeared stern

to many, since I did not judge according to

appearance, nor was I held back by anyone.

I did not cease, as it seemed to me, to act

according to God’s will; if it seemed different

to others, it did not to me. Whence I suffered,

and was in need, and was attacked by some,

as you know.

6. The circumstances consumed me,

and even before the storm, the great wave of

the events caused me to fall ill: I was almost

cast in the depths, led just before the gates of

Hades. This happened while I was in this city,

I do not know for what reason. However, I

certainly know that the fault was truly mine,

for I have upset God, and this happened to

me, so that I might pay in part my debt to God.

May my suffering be of education and profit

for my brethren. I know no other cause for my

sufferings than my own sin. Paul exulted in his

sufferings, saying: ‘I delight in weakness, in

insults, in hardships, in persecutions’, and

praying for his weakness to disappear he

heard ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my

power is made perfect in weakness’, he

rejoiced in his difficulty, saying: ‘Therefore, I


will boast all the more gladly about my

weakness, so that Christ’s power may rest on

me.’ (2 Cor, 12:10, 12:19) If he did this, then

who of those with me would dare to say that

what happened to him, especially the

sickness, was not for his advantage?

Therefore, I shall never leave the

Thessalonians because of my weakness,

since I do not want to gain the repute of a

deserter and be thought to have no care for

what is expected of me for the sake of the

flesh. But, since I ought to worry for many

other interests of ours and of those in this city,

and if necessary brave danger for them, for

constant dangers and storms accompany this

undertaking, it seemed just to me to ignore

the hardship of my sickness so far as to

disregard my body, overlook dangers and

brave, with my feeble strength, the roads, the

sea, the things I mentioned before, so that,

God willing, your situation might improve and

become safe, somewhat thanks to my

struggle. Indeed, I do not ask for anything else

but that you stay with your Orthodox masters,

guard your freedom, and keep your faith

unshaken. Fathers should rejoice in their

children’s faith, and children continuously

prove themselves followers of their fathers’

orthodoxy. If anyone thinks otherwise, he is a

traitor of the faith, and deserves a

condemnation more severe than that of the

infidel.

7. Our blessed despot, when I

consulted him on this matter, approved my

decision and wants to assist me in my

journey, and on my part, I hasten on it. I know

that many have different opinions on it all, but

I tell you, in truth, that I was eager to do this

all for your advantage. Then, become my

helpers! But do not help, with wealth, nor by

toiling in missions abroad, but uniting in

concord and urging each other to do good.

Strive over piety, stand for your homeland,

endure all kinds of oppression, all anguish, all

suffering, if necessary to keep yourselves free

from the enemies of Christ. Look at our

surrounding cities! What happened to them,

brethren? What sorts of attacks do they

withstand each day? Observe, what is worse,

that many living in these cities endanger their

souls by abandoning our religion, and, alas,

little by little the pious decrease in number

due to these daemonic assaults. Therefore,


let us not be careless nor negligent about

what is happening: indolence is dangerous

indeed. Truly, I know your woes and your

anguish, and that many of you are distressed,

miserable and poor because of these events.

But stand firm to the end please, for the Lord,

since He says that ‘the one who stands firm

to the end will be saved’ (Mt. 10:22; Mk.

13:13), and He will give you the goods of the

earth and there you will receive a great

reward.

8. Do you not see what wondrous things

Christ does for us through the supplications of

his mother and of our guardian, the martyr

Demetrios? He saved us against all

expectations. He destroyed our enemies, who

were insolent and plotted against us. He gave

us freedom and relief from all this. Even if we

fell because of our sins, which we began to

revel in because of our thoughtlessness, it

would not have been because of God, but us.

And rightfully so, for we are thankless for his

benefices, and unrepentant of the evils that

we have done, and once we have some relief,

we become complacent and think that

everything is disposed by us, and not by our

Lord: we are not humble nor thankful, we do

not submit completely to the dispenser of

every good. That is why we are crushed, why

we are miserable, and why not only our

enemies make us suffer, but also

earthquakes, disease, hail and drought. We

were forgetful of God and paid no attention to

any of his things: we blasphemed against

both. We lived like heathens, despite being

the people consecrated by Christ’s blood. We

lived the holy days devoted to him as common

and profane. We had no respect for the feasts

and Sunday, we did not pray, we did not

remember God. We rejoiced in injustice and

arrogance, in self-abandonment and impurity,

we were absorbed in any other evil. Nor did

we remember to gather at the right time in the

churches of God, but in thought and

expression and in worthless and

dishonourable encounters with each other we

angered him more, ‘for God’s wrath descends

upon those who commit these actions’ (Ep.

Col. 3.6; Ep. Rom. 2.2) as Paul says.

Therefore, I pray, let us be alert and vigilant,

let us ‘resist the devil and he will flee from you’

(Jm. 4:7), as Peter also commands. Let us

approach the Lord in confession and fall


before him weeping, and he shall bestow his

mercy upon us.

9. I entrust you to God and to the power

of his grace, for He is the one who guides you

to everything that is good, who guards and

saves you. I came to you in love and in love I

depart. I can boast in Christ that I desired

neither silver, nor gold, nor any of your

possession. I procured for myself no

extravagant clothes, no riches, no other

luxury. I can trust to say in Christ that I

coveted nothing of yours. I leave without

anything from this Church, and even if I had

some little necessity, I did not take it from you

here, but from the generous zeal of a devout

soul in the love in Christ. And I am thankful for

this, ‘for I do not seek what is yours, but you’

(2 Cor, 12:14), as Paul writes. Then, I ask for

God’s blessing, peace, shelter and help for

you. I recommend you by the name of our

Lord Jesus Christ, that you all might have love

in Christ, and peace towards each other, that

each of you might act toward their salvation.

God-loving bishops! Take care of your flock

and do not leave them, since you owe Christ,

the chief-shepherd, their salvation. Leaders of

the holy monasteries and ministers of the

spiritual services! strive with all your strength

about the government of your holy

monasteries and work for the salvation of the

souls who approach you. Chosen

administrators of the shrines and churches,

take care of the administration of the holy

hymns and of the beauty of the holy temples,

of their order and organisation. Besides, take

care of justice and give out righteous

judgements, as if to bring a perfect gift to the

good judge. Remaining priests and members

of the clergy! Cling on to your faith and take

care, with all your strength, continuously, of

the holy hymns and prayers, so that God may

always look after you. Maintain the doctrine

given to you in Christ, in order to gain the

Father’s blessing. All rulers, all ruled, be

careful about your faith and salvation. Do not

forget about your soul. You, first, do not go

against those below you and crush them,

while you others, who are under their

command, do not hate your masters, but love

each other as a part of one single body, united

in Christ. Fear God, respect the Church, obey

your emperor. Hold on to justice above all,

which is able to exalt a people, and do not


depart from the earthly and heavenly goods.

Pray for me too, that I might be led on the way

towards salvation, and that I may accomplish

something useful for you by attaining the

divine supervision and salvation from this. I

remit you all in Christ and ask from God

shelter, blessing and salvation. May the grace

of our Lord Jesus Christ and His mercy be

with us all,

Amen.

The Oxford University Byzantine Society · translatio imperii? Of Kritovoulos we know very little...

Documents

Transcript of The Oxford University Byzantine Society · translatio imperii? Of Kritovoulos we know very little...